Back
2017 Supreme(Ori) 930
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.K. RATH, J.
M/s.Dharani Sugar & Chemicals Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
The Co-operative Sugar Industries Ltd. - Opp. Party
RVWPET No.63 of 2016
Decided On : 27-10-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. A.R.L. Sudarsan, Senior Advocate, Mr. D.P. Nanda, Advocate.
The defendant's standing to challenge court fee exemption and the interpretation of legal provisions regarding court fee exemptions.
Headnote:
Court Fees Act - Exemption of Court Fees - Sec.35 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 - Mahasay Ganesh Prasad Ray and another vs. Narendra Nath Sen and others, AIR 1953 SC 431, Bijay Kumar Sahoo vs. Gokula Bihari Mohanty and others, AIR 2011 Ori.183
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought exemption from payment of court fees due to financial distress. The defendant challenged the exemption granted by the trial court, leading to a review application before the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The defendant was held to have no locus standi to challenge the exemption. The word 'person' in the notification includes 'Juridical Person'. The annual income of the plaintiff did not exceed Rs.12,000, justifying the exemption. The subsequent notification was found to be irrelevant for the case.
Issues: Locus standi of the defendant to challenge court fee exemption, interpretation of the word 'person' in the notification, and the relevance of subsequent notifications.
Ratio Decidendi: The defendant lacked standing to challenge the exemption. The word 'person' in the notification includes 'Juridical Person'. The subsequent notification was found to be irrelevant for the case.
Final Decision: The petition for review was dismissed as the court found no grounds warranting reconsideration of the judgment.
ORDER :
DR. A.K. RATH, J.
1. This is an application for review of the judgment dated 18.12.2015 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.10717 of 2005.
2. The opposite party as plaintiff instituted M.S. No.149 of 2001 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bhubaneswar for recovery of Rs.23,76,37,000/-towards outstanding liability impleading the petitioner as defendant. An amount of Rs.71,30,305/-was payable towards court fees. The plaintiff filed an application for exemption of court fees in view of the notification of the Government of Orissa dated 7.6.1994 issued under Sec.35 of the Court Fees Act, 1870. It was stated that the plaintiff-industry sustained heavy loss. The financial condition of the industry was in doldrums. The plaintiff was not in a position to pay the interest on loan incurred from different financial institutions. The industry was closed since 2000-2001. There was no surplus income to pay the court fee. Its annual income was much less than Rs.12,000/-per annum. Learned trial court by order dated 20.11.2002 exempted the plaintiff from payment of court fees. The defendant entered contest and filed a written statement along with counter claim. The defendant filed an application to recall the order dated 20.11.2002. The plaintiff filed objection. By order dated 20.7.2005, learned trial court allowed the application filed by the defendant and directed the plaintiff to pay the court fees.
3. Assailing the order dated 20.7.2005, the plaintiff approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.10717 of 2005. This Court formulated the following questions.
“(1) Whether the defendant has any locus standi to challenge the order of the learned Additional District Judge (FTC No.-III), Bhubaneswar exempting the plaintiff from payment of court fees?
(2) Whether the word ‘person’ appearing in Clause (vi) of the notification dated 7.6.1994 issued by the Government of Orissa under Section 35 of the Court Fees Act, 1970 includes juridical person?
(3) Whether the annual income of the plaintiff exceeds Rs.12,000/-enabling it from exemption of court fees under the aforesaid notification ?”
4. Taking a cue from the decisions in the case of Mahasay Ganesh Prasad Ray and another vs. Narendra Nath Sen and others, AIR 1953 SC 431 and Bijay Kumar Sahoo vs. Gokula Bihari Mohanty and others, AIR 2011 Ori.183, this Court held that so long as the error is not one affecting the jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit or entertain the appeal, the defendant is not affected thereby and in suits filed in Court of unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction, the defendant may not be entitled to question the decision on the valuation. But then the question of overvaluation may, however, be different. Admittedly, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) is unlimited. The instant case is not a question of over valuation. Thus, the defendant has no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the learned trial court, whereby and where under, the plaintiff has been exempted from payment of court fees. It was further held that the word ‘person’ appearing in clause (vi) of the notification issued by the State of Orissa takes within its sweep “Juridical Person” as well. The annual income of the plaintiff-industry does not exceed Rs.12,000/-. The petition was dismissed. Thereafter the defendant filed SLP No.2845 of 2016 before the Hon’ble apex Court. The same was dismissed as withdrawn granting liberty to the petitioner to seek review of the judgment dated 18.12.2015. With this factual scenario, the instant petition has been filed.
5. Heard Mr. A.R.L. Sudarsan, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. D.P. Nanda, learned Advocate for the petitioner.
6. Mr. Sudarsan, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner argued with vehemence that in super-session of the notification dated 7.6.1994, the Government of Orissa issued another notification dated 30.1.2013, Annexure-2, wherein the words “Cases” or “Proceedings” have been clarified to mean and exclude cases which a
